If you are interested in joining our mailing list, please submit your email below.
Brush, a very qualified facilitator in Portland has created this document on the forum and has asked that it be added here for discussion.
This proposal results from a series of Occupy Portland General Assembly discussions, referred to open meetings for further development. Most recently, this proposal was consensed by 80%+ of the 10/8 7pm General Assembly. Further refinements were suggested, which will be discussed and integrated on Monday 10/10 at 10am. Discuss beforehand and send proxies if you can’t come yourself!
Open Consensus: a framework for building consensus in an open assembly
==============================
OPEN CONSENSUS PROPOSAL
———————–
* After discussion of a proposal, facilitators will ask to “see the consensus of the assembly”, by asking who agrees, who disagrees, and who stands aside. These proportions will always be recognized and recorded, as the basis for further development of the proposal, and/or autonomous action by those that agree.
* If there is very strong support for a proposal, the facilitators may ask to see if there are any remaining blocking concerns. If there are not, this can be considered a “full consensus of the assembly”. This has the greatest legitimacy for action on behalf of the whole.
* When appropriate, a consensus of 90% or more of the assembly, regardless of blocks, can be considered an “agreement of the assembly”. Depending on the proportion, this has relatively less legitimacy as “speaking for the whole” and should be used cautiously with understanding that there are unresolved major concerns.
Background
———-
We are an open assembly, designed to welcome the 99% — with new people always arriving, people with profoundly different perspectives, experiences, needs, values, ideas. This diversity is valuable, a source of wealth.
A core purpose for the assembly is for us to hear each other, to discover who agrees on what, and who disagrees. Those that agree can find each other and take action together. Those that disagree can find each other, discuss and debate, and create new solutions that take more perspectives into account, building broader consensus.
Most consensus tools are designed for groups with consistent, well-trained participation rooted in a well-defined common purpose. Such consensus practices build trust and understanding over time, weaving people together. In this context, blocks and stand asides and other tools are gifts that support the process by ensuring that “minority” concerns are heard, understood, and addressed.
In an open assembly, however, mechanically using these same tools can distort and mask the real complexity and diversity of the assembly, for example by amplifying those with confident or contrarian voices far more than everyone else.
This “open consensus” proposal is an attempt to adapt consensus tools to better achieve the core goals.
How To Use Open Consensus
————————-
There are very different kinds of proposals that come to the assembly: how urgent is it? how much does it affect everyone? how logistical is it? how political is it? etc. Depending on such differences, different outcomes can be sought.
* Often, the most valuable outcome of bringing a proposal to an assembly is to discover who consenses to it, so that groups and individuals can act autonomously with that information in mind.
* Often, the most valuable outcome is to discover who has strong concerns with a proposal, and what they are, so that more work can be done to create a more comprehensive solution.
* Sometimes, however, it’s important for the assembly to know that a proposal can be understood to “speak for the whole”. This confers a particular legitimacy.
Which outcome is needed for which proposals is something we hope to explore together in practice. “Open consensus” is an attempt to formalize a process that can support all the outcomes above, as needed.
Potential Examples
——————
* Rodrigo proposes a resolution to demand that bankers have a salary cap. 60% of the assembly consenses to it. Rodrigo sets a meeting time to get together with those that agree to distribute flyers, write congresspeople, etc. (Such literature may indicate that 60% of an assembly of Occupy Portland consensed to the demand.)
* Desiree proposes an action to occupy Umpqua Bank offices to stop clearcutting. 40% of the assembly consenses to it, but 50% of the assembly consenses to an action to occupy Wells Fargo to stop Arizona anti-immigrant policing. Both groups set up times to meet and plan, while also setting up a meeting of those with particularly strong feelings one way or the other to see if a combined or linked action is possible, to be brought back as a revised proposal.
* Allison proposes that alcohol not be consumed in the encampment; 80% of the assembly consenses. It’s referred to the safety, kids, sexual assault, and other logistics committees for further action, with understanding of the weight of support for the idea. At the same time, those with the greatest ideological and logistical concerns with the proposal meet with a group of those supporting it to try and address the concerns.
* Thami proposes the open consensus framework as a process of decision-making. 80% of the assembly consenses. Groups discuss further, refine the proposal, and at the next GA 90% consense. While this can when necessary be acted on as an “agreement of the assembly”, there remain some important concerns. Several groups continue to work on addressing those and refining the proposal. Deep discussion ensues, combined with growing experience with the process. New people constantly enter, being trained in the evolving process (including the concerns outstanding). Eventually in two weeks, full consensus (of the 700 at general assembly) is reached except for three people: a person that has blocked any ideas other than absolute consensus, accusing those who try to meet and talk of being infiltrators; and two new participants arriving for the first time who think any form of consensus is hopeless. This is considered a strong agreement of the assembly — though not a full consensus. Everyone involved is proud of their work, has learned a lot, understands the process much better, and has stronger relationships with each other.
I’m pretty sure that “consense” is not a word. I think you’re looking for the word “consent”, although “agree” or “support” are probably more fitting words for the places where you’ve written “consense”.
I think I just fell in love with you. “Consense?” REALLY? Could that sound any more like someone attempting to be just one more corpspeaking idiot? Making up words isn’t really the way to get people to take you seriously, and given that one of the big ongoing agenda items is “forgive the student debt that I willingly incurred because I thought an education would increase my earning potential” I think maybe we should switch that to “make the school that didn’t teach me to use real words give my money back for pretending to educate me.”
The people will always define their own language. Many of us feel that the school system, as part of the establishment, perpetuates our deleterious circumstances. If you can support your views without deferring to the school system, you’ll find much more support among the people.
“consense” has emerged over the decades as a specific description of the type of agreement achieved in consensus process.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consense
Please empower the “stack master”
Maybe someone is in charge of taking stack, and another in charge of enforcing stack?
If someone inturrepts, please stop them and immediately add them to the end of stack.
80-90% really needs to be incorporated, how long will the facilitators be willing to handle meetings that can go on forever?
–With the rainy season coming, maybe will find some office space with projectors. We could have a twitter stream showed in the background with a hashtag, so people can see what others are things, something like #occpdxGA1 , #occpdxGA2 We live in the technology age, and we’re trying to run this meeting like primatives.
–After 1 hour, any proposal is automatically tabled, unless we can reach consensus to continue the discussion (with 80-90%) in 5 minutes.
Those are my ideas. I hope they are expressed somehow in the meeting today.
the following is the revised proposal that came out of monday morning meeting.
Open Consensus: a framework for building consensus in an open assembly
[This proposal results from a series of Occupy Portland General Assembly discussions, referred to open meetings for further development. Most recently, this proposal was consensed by 80%+ of the 10/8 7pm General Assembly. Further refinements were suggested, which were discussed and integrated on Monday 10/10 at 10am. This version, with variants, will be proposed at Monday 10/10 7pm GA.]
OPEN CONSENSUS PROPOSAL
(as revised Monday, 10/10/11)
• After discussion of a proposal , facilitators will ask to “see the degree of consensus of the assembly”, by asking who agrees, who disagrees, and who stands aside. These proportions will always be recognized and recorded, as the basis for further development of the proposal, and/or autonomous action by those that agree.
o Stand asides will be distinguished from abstentions. Stand asides refer to those that have concerns with the proposal but do not block it, and will be recorded and count towards the degree of consensus. Abstentions are those that lack adequate information or investment to affect the decision, and will not be counted.
o The notetaker will announce a “rough estimate” of the degree of consensus. Then, if there is dispute about whether a threshold has been reached, anyone may ask for an actual count.
• If there is very strong support for a proposal, the facilitators may ask to see if there are any remaining blocking concerns. If there are not, this can be considered a “full consensus of the assembly”. This has the greatest legitimacy for action on behalf of the whole.
• In limited situations, particularly urgent ones, a consensus of 90% or more of the assembly, regardless of blocks, can be considered an “agreement of the assembly”. Depending on the proportion, this has relatively less legitimacy as “speaking for the whole” and should be used cautiously with understanding that there are unresolved major concerns.
o If it’s important for a proposal to “speak for the whole,” full consensus will always be sought first. If it cannot be reached, the assembly will engage in at least two rounds of seeking changes to the proposal that adequately address the blocking concerns, either between assemblies or, for especially urgent matters, within the same assembly. Those that block are responsible for meeting with proponents and trying to address all the needs.
o If, after at least two rounds, there remain blocking concerns, the proponents may ask the assembly to recognize the decision as an “agreement of the assembly” with only ≥90% consensus. The facilitators will ask the assembly, “Is this proposal so urgent or otherwise necessary that we are willing to override the blocking concerns of up to 10% of the assembly?” If 90 / 99% of the assembly agree to do so, then the proposal may be considered an “agreement of the assembly” with only ≥90% consensus.
NOTE: the Monday morning meeting did not agree whether 90% or 99% should be the bar required in order to accept less than full consensus as an agreement of the assembly. Both should be proposed at the GA.
It would be great if this could be made into a handout or something, I think it is a good explanation of the model. Was this model consensed upon at the GA on 10/8?
Note: this amended proposal was consensed at GA on 10/10 with minor revisions: in particular, only 90% will be required to agree to move agreement of the assembly as urgent/necessary. full revision to follow soon, including both a full version that integrates with the proposal process and the GA skeleton. we’re also working on short “cheat sheet” versions. watch this space.
final version of consensed proposal can be downloaded at: http://dp.tlcfarm.org/tmp/open.consensus.pdf
integrated and “cheat sheet” versions still pending.
Consense is now in our vocabulary. ‘con’ means “with” in Spanish and, delightfully, the rest is just sense, sometimes common but I guess in your agreements it would mean “visible” which beautifully takes a count of all the bodies present.